This Month In Nova Scotia Family Law – December 2025

O'Togher v MacKinnon, 2024 NSSC 362

Judge: Honourable Justice Lorne J. MacDowell
Subject Matter: Division of Property

Summary: The applicant sought an equal division of the parties' jointly owned property pursuant to the Partition Act. The respondent instead proposed a 75/25 division in his favour, subject to certain deductions. The parties were in a seven-year common-law relationship (2014–2021). Shortly before separation, they purchased a property in Red Islands, Nova Scotia, taking title jointly.

The applicant relied on the strong presumption of equal sharing arising from joint title and argued that the respondent bore the onus of rebutting that presumption. The respondent asserted that the purchase funds came from his mother and from an inheritance received through his aunt's estate. The applicant disputed this, maintaining that any monies provided by the respondent's mother were gifts to both parties.

Credibility was central at trial. The respondent's mother was the key witness. Although the respondent initially attempted to avoid calling her due to alleged dementia, he provided no medical evidence to substantiate that claim. Instead, the respondent filed an affidavit from his mother that appeared to support his version of events. On cross-examination, however, her evidence contradicted the respondent's position and largely supported the applicant's account.

Justice MacDowell found the respondent to be not credible and held that he failed to rebut the strong presumption of equal sharing. Having concluded that the parties were joint tenants, Justice MacDowell rejected the respondent's alternative unjust enrichment claim. The Court ordered the property sold and the net equity divided equally, subject only to minor deductions.

Sheridan v Woodill, 2024 NSSC 395

Judge: Honourable Justice Lee Anne MacLeod-Archer
Subject Matter: Child Support variation

Summary: The applicant sought a conditional stay of the respondent's application to vary child support, pending payment of outstanding costs. The applicant also sought an order requiring the respondent to post security for costs on the motion.

The parties were married for 17 years and have three children. Following their divorce, a consent corollary relief order (CRO) was issued. In 2017, after a contested hearing before Justice Gass, the CRO was varied: income was imputed to the respondent, he was ordered to pay child support for three children, and costs of $6,000 were awarded against him. The respondent subsequently failed to pay child support regularly and made no voluntary payments toward costs, resulting in combined arrears exceeding $80,000.

Justice MacLeod-Archer found that a conditional stay under Civil Procedure Rule 88.02(1)(c) was warranted, finding that permitting the respondent to proceed with his variation application while an outstanding costs award remained unpaid would constitute an abuse of process. Key factual findings included: the magnitude of the arrears; that payments toward support and arrears were not made voluntarily; and that the respondent is deliberately underemployed.

Justice MacLeod-Archer further ordered the respondent to pay $1,000 into court as security for costs. On a balance of probabilities, the applicant met the test under CPR 45.02(a)–(c). The Court emphasized that the applicant had responded to the variation application; that she would face undue difficulty in realizing any costs award; that this difficulty arises not from the respondent's lack of means but from his deliberate underemployment to avoid payment obligations; and that it would be unfair to allow the variation application to proceed without requiring security for costs in these circumstances.

Colpitts v Colpitts, 2024 NSSC 387

Judge: Honourable Justice Terrance G. Sheppard
Subject Matter: Divorce pre-trial motions; disclosure and expert reports

Summary: The respondent brought two motions: (1) an order for production of various documents requested by her expert, and (2) an extension of time to file reports from two experts.

The disclosure sought focused on the petitioner's business, specifically the remuneration paid to his business partner and to each shareholder based on their respective roles and duties. The respondent argued such disclosure was necessary to complete the expert reports.

Shortly before trial, the petitioner provided a sworn statement confirming that he and his business partner receive equal compensation from the business. The petitioner's counsel also demonstrated that a significant portion of the documents sought had already been disclosed and were overlooked by the respondent's former counsel.

Justice Sheppard denied the balance of the disclosure requests, finding that the petitioner did not have the remaining records in his possession and could not readily access the information. Justice Sheppard confirmed that disclosure obligations do not require a litigant to seek out or obtain documents that are not in their possession or readily accessible.

With respect to the expert reports, Justice Sheppard granted an extension of time for filing.

The respondent had terminated her former counsel after multiple missed deadlines and subsequently retained new counsel. Justice Sheppard found that permitting the reports would cause minimal prejudice to the petitioner. He further held that the exceptional circumstances, including repeated missed deadlines by prior counsel, the breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship, and the highly probative nature of the proposed expert evidence, favoured allowing the extensions.

Somers-Dilny v Dilny, 2024 NSSC 382

Judge: Honourable Justice Lee Anne MacLeod-Archer
Subject Matter: Divorce, Child Support, Spousal Support

Summary: The respondent applied to vary a 2019 corollary relief order by seeking retroactive termination of child support and spousal support. The applicant opposed termination and sought a retroactive increase in spousal support. The parties lived together for almost 21 years (19 years married) and have one child. In 2019, the Court imputed income to the respondent at $64,825, ordered child support, and ordered spousal support of $800 per month on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases.

Justice MacLeod-Archer found a material change in circumstances. The child moved to live with the respondent in September 2021, began working full-time after finishing high school, and withdrew from parental charge by December 31, 2021. As a result, the child ceased to be a child of the marriage before reaching age 19. Any child-support arrears calculated after March 1, 2020, were forgiven, while any pre-March 1, 2020, arrears must be paid at $100 per month. The applicant's income (CPP disability) fell below the threshold for paying child support, and no retroactive child support was payable by her.

With respect to spousal support, Justice MacLeod-Archer held that the applicant continues to have strong compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement. She was disabled at the start of the relationship, remains disabled, cannot work, faces a monthly deficit, and assumed a traditional caregiving role that enabled the respondent to advance his career. The respondent's income increased substantially post-separation, and the applicant was entitled to share in that increase due to the strength of her compensatory claim. Disability and the "rule of 65" supported indefinite duration.

Justice MacLeod-Archer rejected termination of spousal support and increased spousal support to $3,500 per month, using a "without child support" SSAG approach in this cross-over case. The increase was made retroactive to January 1, 2022. Arrears based on the new amount must be paid at $250 per month in addition to ongoing support. The respondent's application was dismissed and the applicant's variation request granted.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.